Allowed

Amit Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2024ABAIL/865/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Amit Yadav against prosecution under sections of IPC and POCSO Act. The court considered the nature of accusation, lack of prior criminal history, and absence of flight risk. Bail was granted with specific conditions preserving the trial court's independent opinion.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond with two sureties subject to specified conditions regarding police availability and witness conduct; no interference with trial court.

Amit Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31820

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 865 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Amit Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Riyaz Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

It has been informed that the notice to the complainant has already been served, however, none has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0095/2024, under Sections 354, 323, 506 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, relating to police station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR is completely motivated.

¶10

It is urged that the applicant has been falsely implicated. As per the version contained in the FIR, it is alleged that the complainant was being molested by the applicant. The applicant also threatened the complainant the he would embarrass the complainant time and again so that she would not settle her in life. It is also alleged that since the applicant is minor, she did not inform to her relatives and since the applicant was repeatedly indulging in such activities, consequently, the FIR came to be lodged on 18.02.2024.

¶11

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the alleged incident is concocted inasmuch as on the date of the alleged incident, the applicant had to appear for examination of U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board Examination which was held on 17.02.2024. A reference has been made to the admit card which has been placed on record as Annexure No.2.

¶12

It is further stated that the applicant is a youth having a future ahead and in order to unnecessary harass, the instant FIR has been lodged coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, but now is under an impending threat of being

¶13

arrested by the police authorities, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be granted the benefit of the anticipatory bail.

¶14

Learned AGA, on the basis of material in the case diary available with him, has opposed the aforesaid the anticipatory bail could not dispute the fact .

¶15

Having considered the submissions and considering the facts and circumstances including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant including that he has no criminal history and no apprehension has been expressed that the applicant is at flight risk, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant can be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Amit Yadav involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court Concerned, with the conditions:-

¶17

(a) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶18

(b) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶19

¶20

(d) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶21

(e) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶23

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶24

Order Date :- 24.4.2024 Rakesh/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shyamji Mishra Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Department Civil Secretariate Lucknow

Rohit Mandal Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Pappu Kumar Gupta Vs Union of India Thru. Inspector Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Office Lko.

Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Udhaw Singh vs Enforcement Directorate Thru. Assistant Director, Lko.

Ashfaq Ahmad and Others vs Deputy Director Consolidation, Sultanpur and Others